1 / 17

Granular flows confined between flat, frictional walls

Patrick Richard ( 1,2), Alexandre Valance ( 2) and Renaud Delannay (2) (1) Université Nantes-Angers-Le Mans IFSTTAR Nantes, France (2) Université de Rennes 1 Institut de Physique de Rennes (IPR) UMR CNRS 6251 Rennes, France. Granular flows confined between flat, frictional walls.

rowa
Download Presentation

Granular flows confined between flat, frictional walls

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Patrick Richard (1,2), Alexandre Valance (2) and Renaud Delannay (2) (1) Université Nantes-Angers-Le Mans IFSTTAR Nantes, France (2) Université de Rennes 1 Institut de Physique de Rennes (IPR) UMR CNRS 6251 Rennes, France Granular flows confined between flat, frictional walls

  2. Confinedflows on a pile Confined granular flows atop “static” heap Q fixed → Steady and fully developed flows

  3. SidewallsStabilizedHeap • Complex flows • From quasi-static packing to ballistic flows (at the free surface) • Interaction between liquid and “quasi-static” phase (erosion, accretion) • (PRL Taberlet 2003) • increaseswithQ • For large Q, q>> qrepose h tan q = µI + µw h/W q effective friction coefficients (internal and with sidewalls resp.)

  4. nij δij part. j part. i tij ωi Numerical simulations • Discrete elements methods • Soft but stiff frictional spheres • Slightly polydisperse (d ± 20%) • Walls : spheres with infinite mass • Normal force : linear spring and dashpot • Fn = kd +gdd/dt • Tangential force :Coulomb law regularized by a linear spring • Ft = -min(kut,µ|Fn|) • Solve motion equations µ = 0.5, restitution coefficient e = 0.88 N = 48,000 grains (W = 30d) to N = 6,000 grains (W=5d)

  5. g g 2 types of simulations Periodic Boundary Conditions (PBC) Full System (FS) y x z Both give the same tan q .vs. Input flow rate x Simulate a periodic cell (stream wise) The angle of inclination is a parameter The system chooses its flow rate Simulate the whole system Input flow rate is a parameter, the system chooses its angle

  6. Packing fraction profiles n0 n0≈ 0.6 : packing fraction in the quasi-staticregion, q. Origin ofzaxis suchthat :n(z = 0) = n0/2 Profiles of  collapse on a single curve n (z) = (n0 /2) [1+ tanh (z/ln)] (PRL Richard 2008)

  7. Velocity profiles Except close to jamming, Vx and n share the same characteristic length : ln → depthof the flowingLayer : h= 2ln • The shear rate becomes Independent of q for q > 40° and varies as W1/2

  8. Characteristiclength • The characteristic length ln scales with W and increases with inclination (as required ). • Allows to obtainµIand µw

  9. Effective friction coefficients • The eff. Friction coefficients (especiallymw) are more sensitive to the variation of mgwthan to the variation of mgg • The factthatmI varies withmgwisinteresting (effect of the boundaries on the local rheology : mI =m(I))

  10. Sidewall friction (PRL Richard 2008) The resultant sidewall friction coefficient • Also scales with ln • In the flowing layer (y < l), µ remains close to the microscopic friction mgw. • µdecreases sharply at greater depths, but most grains slip on sidewalls.

  11. Particle motion Experiments • Cage motion • jumps • Quick jumps become less frequent deeper in the pile,  increasing the residence time in cages. • While trapped, grains describe a random oscillatory motion • with zero mean displacement • negligible contribution to the mean resultant wall friction force. • As trapping duration grows with depth, the resultant wall friction weakens

  12. Sidewall friction The grain-wall friction coefficient governs the value of the plateau reached close to the free surface z / d The effect of the grain-grain friction coefficient is weak : the dissipation at the sidewalls is crucial!

  13. Viscoplasticrheology µ(I) Collapse for low values of I (< 0.5) or eq. Large packing fractions (0.35 - 0.6) The rheologybased on a local friction law µ(I) breaks down in the quasi-static and the dilute zones

  14. Viscosity • Effective viscosity (cf. Michel Louge talk) : Effective viscosity vs the rescaled depth z/lν

  15. Viscosity Effective viscosity vs the volume fraction Seemsadequate in the « liquid » and « quasi-static » zones. Normalisation by T for the dilute part? (kinetictheory)

  16. Scaling • Flow rate per unit width Q* vs tanq for differentswidth W. Q*sim W5/2 To compare with the experiments (cf. M. Louge) : Q*exp W3/2

  17. Question Everything looks similar in the simulations and in the experiments (at least qualitatively). BUT, the scaling in W isdifferent, with qualitative effects : the shear rate increaseswith W in the simulations, itdecreases in the experiments. Why???

More Related